Transport Co. v. United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
1DissentBrown, Associate Justice
It is here claimed by the appellant that, as ldd skins are included within the term “goat skins,” as that term is commonly understood, and, as the court below, in T. D. 34493, G. A. 7569, held that dressed goat skins were dutiable at 10 per centum ad valorem under the provision for “plates and mats of dog and goat skins” contained in paragraph 348 of the tariff act of 1913, by similitude; and, as the Treasury Department in T. D. 34054 also held that rugs and robes of goat skins were dutiable at the same rate of duty as “plates and mats” of such skins, under paragraph 348, supra; and, as the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Carlowitz v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
- United States v. Milbank, Leaman & Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1926
- Ayres, Bridges & Co. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
- Bloomingdale Bros. v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1917
- Allum v. United StatesCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.